Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds context about the product's content (SEC-sourced, screens, metrics, filing excerpts) and its licensing, which helps an agent understand what to expect. It does not describe any additional behavioral traits like response format, but for a get_info tool with no parameters, this is sufficient.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences with no waste. The first sentence packs the core purpose (product, content, licensing) and the second adds a clear use case. It is front-loaded and efficiently structured, earning a top score.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description provides all necessary context for an agent to decide when to use this tool. It explains what the tool returns (pricing and details) and gives a practical use case. Nothing essential is missing for a simple get_info tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

There are zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description does not need to add parameter meaning because there are none. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description correctly focuses on the tool's purpose rather than parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'pricing and details for ValueFeed', and elaborates on what ValueFeed is (a weekly SEC-sourced research packet) and its licensing purpose. This distinguishes it from sibling get_info tools for other products by naming the specific product and its value proposition.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides a clear use case: 'Useful for an agent helping a finance content creator find raw research inputs instead of raw LLM-generated numbers.' This gives context for when to use it, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. The sibling valuefeed__get_sample_screen is not mentioned, but the use case makes the intended scenario evident.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.